DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Part Three: The Best, The Worst

Gabe Powers recalls his picks for the best and the worst third films of all time

This May saw the release of the third film in three of cinema's largest grossing film series: Spider-Man, Shrek, and Pirates of the Caribbean. All three films made oodles of cash, but garnered lukewarm or negative reviews from critics and fans alike.

This rush of threequels got me thinking about my favourite third film entries, and other times when perhaps the second time was the charm. I can't vouch for those films I have not seen, and the sheer quantity of films has made my selections tough. There are plenty of flicks out there that weren't good or bad enough to warrant mention here.

And by the way...

SPOILERS!

The best threequels aren't necessarily the best or in their series, they're just good movies that happen to be the third in a collection. It's almost impossible to not consider the precursors to a third film, and how that film expands upon the previous films' themes. Satisfaction is important, but sometimes expectations are more than simply met.

Return of the King: Extended Edition

These are in no particular order, but it's hard to top Return of the King, or The Lord of the Rings in general. It may all be bit indulgent, but Peter Jackson and crew's epic production pieces together such a wonderful quilt of image, sound, emotion, action, and drama it's really hard to complain.

As the third and final film in such a gigantic trilogy (the extended editions total almost twelve hours in all), Return of the King is nothing without its predecessors. This is not a standalone film. It’s also even more over-stuffed than the original book. The filmmakers had to cram one and a half epic films into one, due to the fact that several large sections of the previous source novel were missing from the The Two Towers. In the end, the theatrical release of Return of the King was the weakest of the trilogy.

On DVD, with an hour plus of additional footage, Return of the King becomes the wrap up the trilogy needed. Even as a lover of the series, I question a lot of the editing decisions made for the theatrical release. Once the film is bloated to what should be an impossibly long runtime it all comes together and the final extended edition product is one of my favourite films of all time.

Revenge of the Sith/Return of the Jedi

It wouldn't be my list if it didn't have a Star Wars shout out, would it? But which one is number three? Are they both number three? I like to think of the trilogies as separate story arcs concerning the same characters, so I'm counting each film as a good number three.

I spent my last editorial contemplating my affection for the prequel trilogy, and in preparation I re-watched the films. Though I honestly and truly enjoy the first two episodes, I am fully in love with Revenge of the Sith. The majority of the disappointment I found in the other prequel episodes was compounded by the fact that everything I really wanted to see concerning the plight of Anakin Skywalker happened in the final act. We all knew that this would all come down to a bummer ending, but the fact that a multi-million dollar film series ends on such a sad note is pretty incredible. Sure, we know things will get better for the galaxy far, far away, but life is pretty much over for pretty much every one of the main characters involved in these three stories.

Like Return of the King, Revenge of the Sith has the good fortune of coming down to a series of climaxes, with only the General Grievous sub-plot adding anything the audience wasn't already anticipating. The film opens on a high note, but from the second Anakin meets back up with Palpatine the dread sets in. The whole film is just so dark, and it's made even darker by the fact that we, the audience, know that the story has already been told, and that there is no hope of redemption (at least not in this two-hour sitting).

This knowing doom is cleverly played by both Lucas and composer John Williams. The entire film is physically dark in hue, and even moments of triumph are played within shadows. Every planet seems to be overcast, built into a darkened canyon, or perpetually trapped in a gothic-induced night-time state. William's score downplays many of the film's more celebratory elements, constantly reminding the audience of what has to happen in the final act. The music almost cries in melancholy minors even when the visuals are at their most bombastic. Stronger storytelling and performances, and improved special effects all help make this the most memorable of the trilogy, but it is its overwhelming sadness that harvests my affection.

Return of the Jedi is an overall weaker film than Sith, due mostly to its endlessly bland middle section populated by warrior teddy bears, but it has the strongest final act of the entire series (in this humble man's opinion). Jedi's iconic opening brought the series back to its humble serial roots, as our rambunctious heroes save Han Solo who has been condemned to life as a work of abstract art on Jabba the Hutt's wall. The rescue is also a chance for audiences to see how far fledgling Jedi Luke Skywalker has come with his force powers, as the black-gloved dare devil manages to take on the Hutt's minions almost single handed.

The Ewoks, though not nearly as cool as Wookies, serve their purpose in the historically influenced tale of resolve and bravery overcoming greater numbers and technology. Yeah they're cutesy, yeah their victory is pretty unbelievable (even in the realms of Space Opera), but they serve a purpose in the story, and they aren't entirely superfluous, not like a certain Gungan in Episode One ( ’Jar Jar Binks makes the Ewoks look like...like...fucking Shaft’).

But everything is forgiven in the film's finely tuned final act. The plights of three groups of characters are expertly edited and intercut creating a rich tapestry of action and emotion. On Endor, Leia, Han, and their rebel and Ewok forces fight to shut down the shield generator, only to discover they've walked into a trap. Above the Death Star Rebel and Imperial forces battle is what may be the finest large scale dog fight committed to film in the pre-digital age, only to discover that the Death Star itself is entirely operational. Aboard the Death Star, Luke confronts his father and the evil Emperor, and during his epic lightsaber battle with the conflicted and muted Darth Vader he begins to skirt the Dark Side. Someone heroic really should've died at some point during these multiple climaxes, but otherwise it stands as a very satisfying conclusion.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Though not necessarily the best European Western, Sergio Leone's epic Civil War era romp is easily the most recognizable, and in turn may be the quintessential Spaghetti Western. The plot follows three bandits: Blondie (Clint Eastwood), Sentenza (Lee Van Cleef), and Tuco (Eli Wallach) on the trail of a fortune in buried gold during the American Civil War. There are double, triple, and quadruple crosses aplenty as the three ultimate anti-heroes slug it out for superiority.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly really is a culmination of everything found the previous entries in the Dollars Trilogy, Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More. It isn't a direct sequel plot-wise; it's more of a third reboot, mixing the finest elements of Sergio Leone's filmmaking style. It was later overshadowed by Leone’s superior work on Once Upon a Time in the West.

The story isn't anything to get too excited about, but master director Leone works wonders with his juxtaposed landscapes and close-ups, revelling in both the tiniest detail and the vastest scope. The three leads are so memorable that they have become the templates of the genre, the cool soft spoken one, the charmingly vicious villain, and the surprisingly crafty clown. Eastwood and Wallach are often played against type when on screen together, Wallach acting as the straight man to Eastwood's dry sense of humour.

Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors

Nightmare on Elm Street played its part in reinvigorating the horror genre in the late '80s, after the fatigue of one (or two, or a dozen) too many Friday the 13th inspired slashers. Part two, subtitled Freddy's Revenge, was a definitive step down in quality ( unless one watches it as a cheeky, homoerotic comedy, but that's another editorial). Though the money was still pouring in, producers knew they had to step things up if they wanted the same critical acclaim the first episode garnered. Creator Wes Craven was brought back on as a writer, and all was well once again on Elm Street.

The Dream Warriors is my favourite in the series, and with the exception of some very, very dated elements (the 'Dream Warriors' outfits aren't exactly 'cool' by modern standards), the film holds up better than even the first entry. The title concept is actually more of a set-up for future films than a concept for this one, and it's too bad the concept was dropped in the first few minutes of Renny Harlin's follow-up, but the story line is still the finest expansion the character of Freddy Kruger has ever seen.

Director Chuck Russel etched his name into underrated horror cinema archives between this film and his follow-up, the 1988 remake of The Blob (though everything he directed after was increasingly bad). The film has a pulpy look; it's both dark and colourful, and endlessly stylized without ever overdoing it. The creative death scenes opened the flood gates for kills that would become the only highlights of later episodes. Unfortunately this was also the beginning of funny Freddy, which was the bane of the later episodes.

Day of the Dead

George Romero offered up his socio-political views on the 1980s with the darkest and goriest of his initial trilogy of 'Dead' films. The film was released the same year as Dan O'Bannon's comedic and hip take on former Romero compadré John Russo's novel entitled Return of the Living Dead. O'Bannon's film was met with enthusiasm, and grossed a hefty sum, whereas Romero's film was dead in the water (pun is, of course, intended). Even fans of Night and Dawn weren't exactly ecstatic about the finished film. The irony is, of course, that the public treatment of these two films was very much in keeping with Romero's metaphor: Americans in the 1980s weren't big on being told what was wrong with them; they simply wanted to be entertained.

Day of the Dead was the result of a studio refusal to back an unrated production. Romero had written an epic script but was left to choose between toning down the production and toning down the gore. Most fans would agree that he made the right decision in going with a more modestly budgeted film that was true to the style of the previous two films. After the initial disappointment died away, not to mention the blind apathy of the '80s, Romero's third zombie opus was re-evaluated positively by viewers and critics alike. Some fans even consider it their favourite of the series.

Army of Darkness

Someday someone will write a good book about Sam Raimi and devote an entire chapter to the final act of his two trilogies. The fact that fans eventually came around to liking Army of Darkness after years of disapproval leaves me with hope for the future of Spider-Man 3. The two films, and in turn series, have a whole bunch in common.

Evil Dead 2 and Spider-Man 2 are both built upon the foundations of their predecessors, and improve on that foundation, but basically tell the same story. The third parts of both trilogies take their heroes out of their natural environments (in Spider-Man's case, he's presented with a happy life and supernatural enemies, in Ash's case he's thrown into the Middle Ages), and amp up the humour. The fan bases for both series expected darker films than Raimi and his brother Ivan (who co-wrote both films, but not the others in either series) were willing to deliver. Both films were considered massive disappointments by series fan bases, and were unfairly dismissed.

I'm young enough that I actually watched the Evil Dead trilogy out of order. I had no idea that Army of Darkness had anything to do with Evil Dead at the time I saw it. To me it was a standalone film filled with energetic visuals, funny characters, and endlessly quotable one-liners. I can understand the quelled expectations in hindsight, but the film holds a special place in my heart. It was a gateway movie, before I saw it I didn't have a taste for horror, but after Raimi's comedic ease into the genre I spent the next decade addicted to a more pure brew.

Lady Vengeance

Lady Vengeance is a fantastic film. Visually it's one of the most gorgeous in years, but compared directly to its thematic prequel, Oldboy, its light fades to a glimmer. It's not fair that Park Chan-wook's previous film was so damn good. Technically it is the most ambitious film Park has attempted to date. His use of the widescreen frame is second to few, and the attention to decorative detail is astonishing. The film fluctuates between Baroque, hyper-real, impressionistic, and blatantly self-aware (including obvious digital work and characters speaking to the camera). The optical input can actually be at times overwhelming, for better or worse.

The entire film hinges on the performance of our ‘Lady Vengeance’, Lee Yeong-ae, the star of Park Chan-wook's popular break through film, JSA: Joint Security Area. Yeong-ae gives a wonderfully layered performance as a younger woman, feigning innocence, and an older woman hell bent on revenge and ravaged by guilt. Though despite all her dark and dangerous intensity, it is her intrinsic and witty sense of humour that most of us will remember her for. Yeong-ae is backed up by a rock-solid supporting cast, peppered with some of Park's favourite character actors, including Oh Dae-su himself, Choi Min-sik, as Geum-ja's mortal enemy and the cause of her imprisonment.

Continuing his ambitious streak, Park opts to deal with the moral and ethical issues presented by bloody, murderous revenge, rather than the aiming of guilt. Choi Min-sik's guilt is never in question, but Lee Yeong-ae's motives may be. These issues were the basis of the first part of his ‘Vengeance Trilogy’, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, where they were dealt with in somewhat heavy-handed and unmistakably dark manner, which turned off many viewers. Here Park tries to infuse the issues with more humour, not to mention honesty. The hands are still pretty weighted, but they're much more elegant this time around. One might even call it 'lady-like'.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

I thought the first Harry Potter film, Philosopher's Stone, was a very poorly directed film with an interesting story. Chris Columbus kicked up the direction and all around quality with the second film, Chamber of Secrets, but the plot was a dull rehash of the first. I also have zero interest in reading any of the books. The only reason I even saw the third film is theatres was that I went along with my best friend and mother when they visited that summer.

I didn't know who Alfonso Cuarón was at the time, and I knew nothing of the plot of the third book (besides what the trailers told me), so I went into Prisoner of Azkaban with minimal expectations. The story of this third film is a wonderful build on that of the weak foundation set by its predecessors, and all the young actors improved exponentially between films. The clincher is Alfonso Cuarón, who's ten times the film director Chris Columbus could ever hope to be. Azkaban has a grounded realism not found in the other films, and Cuarón's control of special effects and action (something he'd perfect with his next film, Children of Men) is second to very few. All the while the previous film's greatest strengths — the art direction and set design — are not lost.

I'd like to think of parts one and two as extremely long trailers, Azkaban is the main course. Part four ended up tripping back a hair. If only Warner Bros. could get Cuarón back for another episode.

Honourable Mentions

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: Not the best film in the series by a long shot, but a solid improvement on the weak second entry. The film's power lies in its sense of humour, something I'm hoping won't be forgotten when the ill-advised forth entry is finished.

Police Story 3: Super Cop: Hong Kong films are known for actually improving with sequels, and Jackie Chan's third Police Story film is no exception. All in all, Super Cop may be Chan's best film. The physical humour and action is multiplied tenfold and Michele Yeoh is thrown into the mix for good measure.

Alien 3: I admit I wasn't a fan of David Fincher's feature directorial début the first time I saw it, and when compared directly to James Cameron's super-charged second entry in the Alien series, the film still suffers, but I have developed a respect for the claustrophobic little recall of Ridley Scott's original. The release of a 'producers' cut on DVD, along with hours of behind the scenes footage telling us exactly what went wrong with the production only helps refine my respect. Not a great film, but not nearly as bad most of us remember. Of course, I still like Alien Resurrection, so take my opinion on this matter with the appropriate grain of salt.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines: A companion piece to Alien 3, Terminator 3 is a nice spit-wad in the face of Cameron's previous super influential series. My reason for including it as an honourable mention has everything to do with the fact that wasn't entirely awful. I went in expecting the worst, and didn't get it. The performances (other than Arnold, of course) are fantastic, the bone crunching car/crane chase is amazing, and the bleak finale is a very nice touch.

Goldfinger: I'm not a huge Bond fan, but I can watch most of the Connery episodes at the drop of a hat. Goldfinger is possibly the most famous early Bond flick, and is important to the archetype power of the character, but not one of my favourites overall. It's a very solid entry that just happens to have been stuck between the two best.

The Muppets Take Manhattan: I'm not sure if the Muppets have ever done wrong on the big screen (I even enjoyed Muppets from Space), and the third part of the series is easily the finest DVD I've ever peeled off a cereal box. Manhattan is best when it focuses on Miss Piggy, who's the weakest (and most obnoxious) character in the rest of the series (all of them, and I've seen all of them), and disserves quite a bit of love for that reason alone.

Halloween 3: Season of the Witch: I didn't see Season of the Witch for years based on the bad word of mouth from series fans. The film isn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but is the best of the Halloween sequels, mostly because Michael Myers isn't an interesting enough concept to build an entire film series upon. Season of the Witch is an odd little film, unlike any other, and worth at least a rent for '80s horror fans.

Exorcist III: Legion: Years after the complete debacle that was Exorcist II, Warner Bros. found the courage to revisit the series again, this time putting writer William Peter Blatty in charge direction. Blatty's picture was pretty much ignored on its initial release, but garnered more praise than John Boorman's massive flop. After its release on home video the film gained some steam and a healthy cult following. Some now consider the film on par with the original, but the truth is that like so many 'discovered on video' classics it has become a tad over-praised by a vocal minority.

Die Hard with a Vengeance: Another unfairly maligned film, the third in Bruce Willis' Die Hard series was very different from the first two (the script started life as an entirely unrelated film called Simon Says), but is an entertaining action film in its own right. The last act is sudden and poorly executed (have a look at the DVD extras), and the scenes without Willis or Sam Jackson are lacking, but the action is top notch, if not a bit daft (truck surfing indeed). At least it was R-rated.

Return of the Living Dead Part 3: Money man and horror genre enthusiast Brian Yuzna has a knack for making brainless comic book entertainment, and all his best films are sequels to series he didn't start (not including Re-Animator, which he only produced). Return of the Living Dead was a horror/comedy classic, but its immediate sequel is one of the worst studio horror releases of the era. Yuzna's teen romance follow-up, which came several years later, is something of a mini-classic, but only in its uncut, unrated form.

There are so many bad films that happen to be the third in a series we could be here all day. The real disappointment comes when a follow-up film fails to live up to the high precedent set by its predecessor. It is these disappointments that make up the worst threequels of all time, the ones you might have expected something good from, or at the very least some minor satisfaction.

Robocop 3

Not a lot was expected from the third trip to future Detroit, but I was still unbelievably disappointed with Robocop 3. First things first: the dreaded PG-13 rating. It's very shallow of me, but the first two films revel in their raunchy violence like too few other American films anymore. One could make a pretty convincing argument that the only good thing about the second film was the fact that it's so blatantly offensive. When a film series that wears its ultra-violence with a smile is so suddenly tamed one can't help but feel a bit ripped off. There’re hardly even any of the great tongue-in-cheek commercials found in the previous two instalments.

There's a lot to be said for Frank Miller's script (yes, that Frank Miller), which was apparently originally part of his mammoth Robocop 2 script, and there are some great looking missed opportunities every which way. Like X-Men: The Last Stand, Robocop 3 gets so very close to taking the whole Robocop story to a satisfying conclusion. Alex Murphy ends up joining an underground resistance against the corporate run city of Detroit, but only after his partner and close friend is murdered in cold blood by the corrupt cops. He even takes on a genius kid as a sort of side-kick in a nice contrast to the bad-guy kid in part two, but none of this works because the filmmakers don't know how to treat the material.

Robocop, and to a lesser extent Robocop 2, is a comedy at its base. A jet black, comic-book inspired comedy. The first film deftly handles moments of over-the-top violence, with moments of genuine levity, and never forgets its pulp and pop roots. It’s a product of its time. Robocop 3 attempts levity, and has the potential for some real drama, but in the face of its neutered violence and lack of adult aspirations, not to mention the wrong kind of humour, the film fails again and again. In the end we have a Saturday morning cartoon version of the original film, complete with various attachments to Robocop's cyborg frame, enabling the film to sell more toys.

Matrix Revolutions

Like most of the world I left Matrix Reloaded with big reservations. The whole thing seemed so overdone, and somewhat untrue to the plucky spirit of the original film. The Matrix was the anti- Star Wars, a referential and allegorically layered science fiction yarn for adults. Star Wars simplifies its meaning, The Matrix revels in over-analyzation.

Seeing Reloaded a second time on DVD was a bit of an eye opener. I could see now exactly what went wrong—the film takes too long getting started. When you distil the forty-plus minutes of dance scenes, repetitive character introductions, and lacklustre fisticuffs, you’ll find a nice and concise set-up. When Neo meets up with the Oracle and the plot finally kicks in the rest of the film is a damn fine one. In fact, Reloaded is a film I respect a little bit more with each subsequent viewing. I honestly consider purchasing the DVD box set every once and a while, if only it wasn't for that awful third film.

I went into Matrix Revolutions with drastically lowered expectations, and I got what I deserved. I enjoyed the film the first time I saw it. But contrary to my reaction to Reloaded, I've learned to hate Revolutions with subsequent viewings.

The first problem is the fact that Reloaded ends with a gigantic, cliff hanging question mark, and appeared to be a lead-in to the richest psycho-analytical, big-budget production of all time. If the Wachowski brothers would've followed the tracks they laid they might have made a film to rival 2001: A Space Odyssey. Instead we get a substandard re-run of Return of the Jedi, minus the last act editing.

Revolution’s opening reel opens a whole mess of new and intriguing doors, revealing the fact that computer programs within the Matrix have something close to human emotions. They aren't bad guys; in fact, they may be more worth saving than the apathetic humans that started the whole war. Then we're introduced to a new character, the Train Man, and reacquainted with the Merovingian (the sequels’ second most interesting character behind Smith). Things are looking good until our heroes go to save Neo, which involves the same slow motion fighting we've seen a million times before, only this time it’s all up-side down. Oooo. Then it turns out saving Neo from the Merovingian's clutches is as easy as putting a gun to the bastard's head.

From here on out the film is divided in two, one half giant battle in the real world, and one half giant battle with the Matrix. The real world battle is pretty and all, but devolves into every other war movie you've ever seen, complete with ridiculous one-liners, and a gaggle of B-characters nobody cares about. Neo and Trinity's trip to the core is more interesting, and less numbing, but the sequence is cut separate from the human vs. machine battle, making both appear short and limp-wristed. It's fun watching Neo and Smith pound the hell out of each other, but perhaps some urgency should’ve been considered. Maybe the machines shouldn't have put down arms until Neo was victorious. Perhaps some cross-cutting was in order.

The whole mess is wrapped up in a very frustrating bow. I get that this whole thing is about choice (I saw the previous film), but had the Oracle simply told Neo all he had to do was give himself up to Smith we would've had one half a movie instead of two. That's why I sat through all of this, so that Neo the Bratty could feel alright about dying? At the very least Hugo Weaving manages to steal every scene he's in. Without him the film would be a total waste. Let's not even talk about the possibly thrilling connotations of Neo's failure at the end of part two, what that could've done to such insanely devoted characters as Morpheus, or the fact that Neo's sudden control over the real world machines is left unexplained and under-utilized. Why did this have to be a trilogy? Why couldn't it be longer?

X-Men: The Last Stand

After years of not understanding the vehement backlash against The Phantom Menace I finally got my first taste of geek-drawn crushing disappointment in 2006. X-Men: The Last Stand is my Phantom Menace. It all comes down to what could have been rather than what was, as The Last Stand is a passable film. Hell, the first half could even be mistaken for good. There are a few stand out scenes, ones good enough that I was willing to eat my Brett Ratner hating words, but the whole thing falls apart so gracelessly that the fall hurts ten times more than it would had the film been irredeemable crap.

X-Men 2 is my favourite superhero movie. It has everything important to the genre going for it. The performances are perfect, the action is spectacular without being irrelevant to the story, the characters, so thinly drawn in the first outing, where entirely three-dimensional beings, and the plot was riveting. It is the Empire Strikes Back of the series in more ways than one, even though the Empire model is a bit over-played in the royal realms of sequeldom (see Matrix: Reloaded, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, etc.). With its final image, X-Men 2 sent me reeling with anticipation for the next chapter, the tale of the Dark Phoenix.

Then the pre-production problems started. Director Bryan Singer ditched the property for Superman Returns, and took a large chunk of the creative team with him. This was followed by a series of near starts with other talented writers and directors, including Joss Whedon ( Serenity) and Alex Proyas ( Dark City), and a real start with the very talented Matthew Vaughn ( Layer Cake), whose various interviews made the project sound like a strong follow-up to Singer's coup-de-grace. When Vaughn left the project suddenly, the greedy mongrels at Fox (the same people that ruined the first X-Men by pushing production into an unrealistic timeframe, and demanding an unrealistic run-time) brought in emergency backup director Brett Ratner to pick up the pieces.

I don't like Brett Ratner's films, and began to actively hate the guy’s work when he somehow managed to make a slam-dunk like Red Dragon into the blandest film in the Hannibal Lector series (until the truly awful Hannibal Rising was released, of course), and a possible contender for this list (I'm counting it as number four). I don't, however, blame the Rat for The Last Stand's ultimate failure. I blame whoever decided to cram eight hours of material into less than two hours of runtime. I actually commend Ratner for not making a complete mess of things. This isn't a bad film, but it isn't a good film, and by all rights it should have been a great film. There are so many missed opportunities in to be found here they could fill Alkali Lake. I'll ask it again—why did this have to be a trilogy? Why couldn't it be longer?

Batman Forever

I really enjoy Tim Burton's Batman movies. When the pale-faced neo-goth left the series I was a little too young to really care about such things, and just assumed Warner Bros. wouldn't piss in their own pool, especially when this particular pool pulled in about a bazillion dollars. I don't know a lot about the history of Joel Schumacher's boisterously bad film, but apparently the Warners didn't like the dark tone of Batman Returns, and after extensive development Burton was 'taken off' the project (apparently Marlon Wayans was going to play Robin, which I initially want to say is stupid, but on second thought may have worked).

Whatever the cause, Schumacher's film is a complete mess, equal parts boring and cheesy. The film embraces nothing; it just plods along, tripping over plot developments and hideous production design all along the way. I actually prefer Batman and Robin because it's so flamboyant and preposterous it at least elicits a reaction ( edit: it elicits a hateful reaction. I hate Batman and Robin, just not as much as Batman Forever, clear?). Batman Forever is a pale shadow of Burton's first film, one not brave enough to be its very own piece of garbage. Nipples and butt-shots are the least of this film's problems.

Zombi 3

I really shouldn't have had any expectations for Lucio Fulci's zombie swan song, but the back-story and quashed possibilities are enough to break a spaghetti splatter fan's gory little heart. Though Zombie isn't actually a sequel to Romero's Dawn of the Dead, and Zombi 3 isn't really at all related to its predecessor, I've got to toss a very personal cheat into every editorial list I write for this site.

Lucio Fulci was pretty close to dying by the time someone finally talked him into making a new living dead flick. Needless to say, his heart wasn't in the feature. When he quit the production due to illness, the producers brought the king of crap Bruno Mattei (may he rest in peace) on board. No one seems to know how much of the footage in the final film was Fulci's and how much was Mattei’s, but it's all moot because it all sucks—every last frame.

Don't get me wrong, I've watched the flick a few times, and it could be worse. The problem isn't that anyone should've expected great quality from either filmmaker (Fulci hadn't made a decent film in something like eight years, and Mattei never made a decent film), but fans should've at least been able to expect an appropriation of Fulci's good films. There's no atmosphere to speak of, unless you count all the super obvious smoke machine work, and even the gore is weak. It'd be great if the film was something special, but it isn't even a decent rip-off. The electronic score, though repetitive as all hell, is awesome, so I suppose that's something.

Dishonourable Mentions

Superman III: I've said before that I'm really not a fan of the Superman films on the whole, but part three is utterly abysmal. The only shining lights of redemption here are a few of the performances (no, not Richard Pryor), especially Christopher Reeve who remains ever dependable, even in the series fourth instalment, which is neigh-on unwatchable. The robo-lady did scare the stuffing out of me as a lad, though.

Godfather Part III: One of the worst films ever nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, but not quite as bad as history seems to remember, the final Godfather movie had a whole lot to live up to. The film's problems include a bland story, stilted and awkward dialogue, and some truly horrendous acting, but it still manages to be better than the people say. Not bad enough to make the official list, but bad enough to garner a nomination.

Star Trek III: The Search For Spock: Again, I'm not a big fan of the Star Trek series, and as a Star Wars apologist I don't want to cause any unnecessary friction betwixt the tribes, but after the pulpy grandeur of Wrath of Kahn, Search for Spock was one of the more boring major motion picture experiences of my childhood. An adult re-watch didn't prove much better. Tim was right; the odd numbered ones are the ones to miss.

Friday the 13th Part 3: Some fans hold Jason's second outing in Camp Crystal Lake in high regard because it's the one where the murdering mongoloid found his head gear. I've given the movie three chances now, and it bores like no other Friday the 13th, except maybe parts seven and eight (which are the worst ones, without a doubt). We shouldn't expect much from the series, but the kills (with the exception of the eyeball squeezing) are relatively tame, and the actor playing Jason is gawky and awkward. Perhaps if the DVD was in the original 3D I'd sing a different tune, but until them I'm done with this one.

Jaws 3D: The third, and unfortunately not the final entry in the Jaws series is so bad it's almost good—almost. I never miss it when it plays on cable, and if it was available in its original 3D on DVD I might have to buy it, but this doesn't change the fact that it is a terminally awful film. What in the hell was Sea World thinking when they lent their name and likeness to this trash?

The Howling III: The Marsupials: The Howling film series may very well be the overall worst in studio motion picture history. Only Joe Dante's original is worth a damned moon beast. The Marsupials isn't the worst (that would be part two), but it's pretty bad, and unfortunately wastes a premise that actually could've made for a decent flick.

Final Destination 3: I adore the first two Final Destination films, especially the kitchen sink included, killer Rube Goldberg festival that was part two. I went to the theatre opening day to see the third entry, and though I can't claim it was particularly 'bad', it was entirely forgettable. I can't remember a single kill off the top of my head. It may sound silly, but Final Destination 3 was one of the biggest theatrical disappointments I've ever had.

Child's Play 3: Child's Play was an unexpected hit, and is an unexpectedly effective little horror film. Its two direct sequels are so bland I can rarely tell one from the other (they were released only nine months apart). I had to look up the 'plot' on imdb.com, and I still recall very, very little other than entirely un-scary images of kids running around some kind of black-lit back lot. The tongue-in-cheek reboot Bride of Chucky was exponentially better.

Scream 3: Even though expectations should've been low after the lacklustre second entry in the Scream series, this third part was such a pathetic rehash it still managed to shock with its sense of utter apathy. The celebrity cameos are the only memorable elements.

Back to the Future III: Here's the question, do I get more flack from readers for liking something as universally hated as Alien 3, or for hating something as universally loved as Back to the Future III? Only time will answer this particular query. Actually, I don't really like any of the Back to the Future series, but part three was even a disappointment when I was still an un-satiated child. How could they follow up the futuristic, time paradoxed second entry with a half-assed trip to the Wild West? Clearly the way to end the series would be a trip to prehistoric times. You can't go wrong with dinosaurs; even the damn ride had one.

The Future

I have hope for the future of threequels, though that hope may be unfounded. The Toy Story series was recently saved from a non-Pixar outing, and if part two was any indication, we should be in for a treat come 2009. I'm hoping that Warner Bros. two big comic properties, Superman and Batman produce a few sequels that are X-Men 2 sized improvements on the previous instalments, then go on to break the third movie comic book curse (though truth be told, I actually liked Spider-Man 3). Dario Argento has been on a pretty stinky roll, but his fans still hold out for the final instalment in the much delayed Mother's Trilogy, which he started with Suspiria and Inferno.

So, what did I miss? I'm sure I missed plenty of awful films. Did I miss any great ones?

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Superman III is a guilty pleasure of mine, but I can understand it's inclusion; it isn't so much a Superman movie as it is a Richard Pryor comedy co-starring Superman.

However, I don't agree with Star Trek III and BTTF3 at all; the former is like the BEST of the odd-numbered ST movies, and BTTF3 is about the only third part of a trilogy where both sequels are shot back-to-back.

Fr all its faults "Godfather 3" is still a highly emotonal and utterly satisfying conclusion.

Well done for putting in the damn good and mistreated "Halloween 3".

What is the beef with "X Men 3"? As was said it seem the comic fans that hate it (I've never read any of them)but, although a bit rushed, I found it to be a very good ending to the trilogy and full of excellent moments for fans of the FILMS who have been following along. I Can't see the problems AT ALL.

Great article Gabe. I know a long time has passed and im not in disagreement with you, I´d just like to give honorable mention to the "Nailgun-repeatedly-to-the-head" kill in the otherwise (like you said) forgettable Final Destination 3. Cheers

TOP 5 1. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End 2. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 3. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith 4. Wallace & Gromit: A Close Shave 5. Ocean's Thirteen

BOTTOM 5 1. Rugrats Go Wild 2. The Land Before Time III: The Time of the Great Giving 3. Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over 4. Batman Forever 5. Balto III: Wings of Change

Now...For some reason, I actually did like "X-Men: The Last Stand," but overall I only saw the first Matrix. Am one of the only few that haven't seen Lord of the Rings. But anyway, here are my Top 5 Favorite and Least Favorite Threequels.

mikey mike wrote: oh wow that is cold. the sleepwalking thing was in part 2 since Williams Ross was the one that actually did most of the scoring.

No, William Ross only helped Williams out with the score for the second movie. John Williams had composed most of the music for "Chamber of Secrets" and was recording it in London, but then had to go do "A.I." for Spielberg. So he enlisted Ross to adapt his themes for the rest of the film that wasn't scored yet and conduct the remaining recording sessions. Williams did compose and conduct the entire scores for PS/SS and POA, though. Patrick Doyle's work on the fourth movie was good but should've been better, ditto for Nicholas Hooper's work on the fifth film as well.

And Gabe, I don't know if you've seen "Order of the Phoenix" yet, but I think it rivals "Prisoner of Azkaban" in terms of quality and scope. But that's just my opinion.

Very well done article, Gabe. I agree with you on ROTK and ROTS/ROTJ, as well as most of the titles you mentioned. I disagree with you about Back To the Future, Part III, I love the change of pace of the movie, the focus on Doc more and his romance. I love all the Eastwood jokes and how much fun the movie is.

I love Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, it comes really close to Raiders in terms of story and quality, it was a great closure to the series, very fun. I also really enjoy Child's Play 3 and Alien 3, too bad Resurrection messed up Ripley's death.

One third film not mentioned that I love is Mission: Impossible 3. I think it tops M:I 2 and most definately part 1. I find the characters, story and action to be much better than the first 2 installments. The movie is really exciting and Philip Seymore Hoffman made a great villain. It was a big improvement over the other movies and came closest to the quality of TV series. I'd love to see a part 4.

The Music of Harry Potter 3 is indeed very great,i rent the cd because i want wait with buying after all movie's are releasd and Warner releasd a 9 disc (2+2+1+1+1+1+1) CE set with all soundtracks. With the dvd's it whas another story,iam not patience enough to wait on a 14 disc CE (2001-2011 is very long) and if i don't buy them one for one i missing the original package include the 2 disc digipack of the first 2 movie's. As well i never buy the book and then i mist a lot.

My rank on this moment:

1. Book 3 2. Book 5 3. Book 1 4. Book 6 5. Book 4 6. Book 2

Movie's:

1. Chamber Of Secrets 2. Philosopher's Stone 3. Azkaban

Yes my favorite books are my less favorites movie's and my less favorite books are my favorite movie's on this moment.

Matt wrote: Greg Watterworth Jr. wrote: Good list... the only thing I guess I would take issue with is the inclusion of..."Halloween 3"... Blasphemer! May the curse of the Silver Shamrock strike you down this Halloween!

I love Halloween III; it's such a strange, fun, and mean spirited little movie that tries to be different. Plus it stars Tom "Will Work For Beer" Atkins, who plays a real man's man type of hero in both this and The Fog, and Dan O'Herlihy is a great villian who's just so giddy over the wholesale murder of children that the feeling is dangerously contagious.

While I dont agree with you on everything (BTTF3 I thought was a nice anthisis to the tech-driven first 2 installments,story - albeit weak - over FX made it more palitable to me) I respect your position and your right to make public your opinions.

Its this that make me wonder about the state of mind of some of the posters here. Like you mentioned in an earlier post, you dont mind the good natured ribbing, I'd say you were quite expecting it, but some of the vitriolic comments raised my eyebrows I must admit. Personal attacks of any nature are not warrented and most definately not welcomed.

For anyone who wishes to say something negative, you may have a diff opinion and by all means voice it, but refrain from being downright nasty, or indeed ignorant. It reflects badly only upon yourself.

Remember, without the hard work put in by the good people like Gabe and Chris and all the other contributors (you know who you are! )we woudn't have this excellent resource at our fingertips.

Quote: As the third and final film in such a gigantic trilogy (the extended editions total almost twelve hours in all), Return of the King is nothing without its predecessors. This is not a standalone film.

I suppose I could've left the whole thing out, but that would've only made one reader happy.

and as far as Anikan's death, yes, I suppose you have me there, but that was the climax, I was refering to the build-up. Part of editing yourself is doing your best to get an idea across in as few words as possible. Apparently I failed there.

First, how can you give a review of the theatrical or extended edition of RotK outside of the context of the entire LotR. film "trilogy". when this work is supposed to be one three part film? You might as well reveiew a high school play's third act instead of the three-act play in its whole.

Second, there is a heroic death in Return of the Jedi. Anikin Skyewalker comes back to kill Vader's evil and dark spirit, and then kills the emperor and dies from getting hit with the "force lightning" in the process.

I still haven't seen Red, so I thought I'd be a hypocrate for putting it in. I was hoping that no one would notice its obvious omission. Leathal Weapon 3 is actually my least favourite of the series, but it got cut in favour of things that disappointed me more. Rocky 3 is kind of the same thing. I didn't see Ring 0, but Lion King 1½ was pretty cute.

The only two series I could imagine adding to this list are for the "Best third entry" - Three Colours Red, Kieslowski's greatest series (arguable next to The Decalogue) with the best entry. For the "Worst third entry" - Leathal Weapon 3, sure not as bad as 4, but definitely a step down from what the first two films were. As much as I love Joe Pesci pre-Leathal Weapon, he's worst than dental surgery without anasthetic in this.

Also: Rocky 3, Ringu 0, and seriously, The Lion King 1½ - an undeniably smart take on a great film for a straight to video effort, if you include the Muppets, you gotta take this into consideration.

oh wow that is cold. the sleepwalking thing was in part 2 since Williams Ross was the one that actually did most of the scoring.

the particular I'm talking about is the music for the scene when Harry is flying on buckbeak. the upward strings that Williams uses for the shot of buckbeak putting his claw in the lake is just magic. you should really watch that scene again and crank up the center speakers

It's interesting you say that because when I saw HP 4 I was thinking to myself "This music is great, Williams stepped it up for this episode." Then I found out it wasn't him. I can't remember the particular cue you're talking about, but with the exception of the theme I always thought Williams was sleepwalking through the HP scores.

And Brett Ratner is a worthless camera pointer...but X3 isn't his fault.

Gabe Powers wrote: It's a two way street. For every Del Toro you get a Mark Steven Johnson. ...Point.

I did enjoy hulk though, actually, but a non-fan is one thing (I don't imagine Ang Lee as a big comic reader) and an anti-fan is something else yet. I'm tired enough of the people who instantly look down on comic books, but it's ok if they keep to themselves, if one of them starts getting involved, it raises my hackles.

So, yeah, I'm not saying they have to have the MSJ or Sam Raimi level of fandom (though in Spider-Man 3, Raimi and his co-scripters proved their ignorance, which was the greatest disappointment to me after the disturbing number of references and injokes to the book in the prior movies) but not automatically looking down on them would be nice. Yeah, a lot of X-Men books are pretty awful. But plenty of them ARE pretty well-written, and there are definitely some non-2d characters.

"God Loves, Man Kills" was a great story, and they really shouldn't have messed with it--especially to remove the religious element.

It's one possible interpretation, but to come here stating that 'Gabe, there are no humans' is a bit over the top. Your interpretation is just one of many, and the whole Animatrix thing seems to back up the fact that there was a war, machines did harvest humans, and that the situations presented in the film are as they appear (for the most part).

I can provide counter arguments for every point you made, but I couldn't be arsed.

slapshot wrote: I've said this before, and here I go again: if you didn't like Matrix Revolutions, then you really didn't "get" it.

Quote: "they may be more worth saving than the apathetic humans that started the whole war". Gabe, there are no humans. It is made pretty clear during both the park scene with the Oracle and the nigh-infamous scene with the Architect that Neo is an AI. His job is to learn and then return his code to the Source in the Machine City. How can an AI exist in the physical real world? He can't. How can a human upload code? He can't. How can a human control machines just by looking at them? He can't. The "real world" isn't real, it's another Matrix, a shunt program of sorts.

The Wachowski's don't hit you over the head with this idea, but the clues are there all the way back to the first film. (Look at the scene in the original where the FedEx guy hands Neo the package with the phone in it. What is he doing? Nothing. His computer isn't even turned on. He is literally, actively doing nothing... because he has no part to play until that phone rings, drawing him into things. Similarly, why does Morpheus suddenly have nothing to do in the final half of Revolutions? Because his story is over; Morpheus' job was to get the One to deliver his code back to the Source. His job was done, he no longer had a purpose.)

The trilogy is not the story of a war between humans and AI's, it's the story of a war between different factions of AI. Watch Reloaded/Revolutions with the idea in mind that the real world isn't real and the humans aren't humans, and I think you might end up with an entirely different opinion of the trilogy.

I totally agree, but I believe that there is so much hidden text and philosophies present in the trilogy, that we may never have a definitve answer. Me? I like mechs shooting things...

If that's what they intended then they failed. Do you have any creator based factoids to back this up? I don't mean to sound dismissive, but it sounds a bit metatextual. Honestly if this is the truth than my opinions of all three films (not just the last one) is lowered because I've basically spent 6 hours watching a rather lame M. Knight Shymalan last act twist.

I've said this before, and here I go again: if you didn't like Matrix Revolutions, then you really didn't "get" it.

Quote: "they may be more worth saving than the apathetic humans that started the whole war". Gabe, there are no humans. It is made pretty clear during both the park scene with the Oracle and the nigh-infamous scene with the Architect that Neo is an AI. His job is to learn and then return his code to the Source in the Machine City. How can an AI exist in the physical real world? He can't. How can a human upload code? He can't. How can a human control machines just by looking at them? He can't. The "real world" isn't real, it's another Matrix, a shunt program of sorts.

The Wachowski's don't hit you over the head with this idea, but the clues are there all the way back to the first film. (Look at the scene in the original where the FedEx guy hands Neo the package with the phone in it. What is he doing? Nothing. His computer isn't even turned on. He is literally, actively doing nothing... because he has no part to play until that phone rings, drawing him into things. Similarly, why does Morpheus suddenly have nothing to do in the final half of Revolutions? Because his story is over; Morpheus' job was to get the One to deliver his code back to the Source. His job was done, he no longer had a purpose.)

The trilogy is not the story of a war between humans and AI's, it's the story of a war between different factions of AI. Watch Reloaded/Revolutions with the idea in mind that the real world isn't real and the humans aren't humans, and I think you might end up with an entirely different opinion of the trilogy.

It's a two way street. For every Del Toro you get a Mark Steven Johnson. Sometimes fans need to stay away, sometimes they make it great. Two of my favourite comic book films, X2 and Hulk, aren't very true to the specifics of the comic, but I think they're true to the spirit. Then again, a whole lot of people, people who aren't even comic fans hated Hulk, so maybe it has more to do with my taste in film than my taste in comics.

Gabe Powers wrote: So far as Lady Deathstrike goes, I beleive the credits list her as Yuriko Oyama. She's really just there to act as Stryker's bodygaurd. Her name and powers are more of an Easter Egg for fans the way I see it.

Except that her powers were wrong and she was suddenly a mutant...so, kind of a c**ppy easter egg (and of course Yuriko Oyama is Deathstrike's real name anyway). That aside, it's more that he would make a comment like that, then a character like that. But the root of my issue is that someone who thinks that lowly of comic books should have nothing to do with them, adaptations or otherwise.

And on the note of Spider-Man 3, I found the emo thing *sort of* funny, my issue with it as a joke was that it was a little too intrusive and a little too overwhelming. Went on a bit too long, was all. Though I had other major issues with that movie anyway...

But, woo, man, nice suggestions on Leone's ...America and In the Mouth of Madness.

I thought the first Harry Potter was good... and when I watched the second one, I felt like I was watching the same movie... which is why the 3rd movie is so great to me, something very different and darker... I liked it a lot... I haven't seen the 4th to compare more.

Funny read, you gave Return of the King its due, and some respect for Revenge of the Sith and Return of the Jedi, and I loved Spider-Man 3. I also feel The Last Crusade is the best Indiana Jones film. I disagree over X-Men, The Matrix and Back to the Future. Oh, and do read the Harry Potter books: then you'll realise Prisoner of Azkaban was the worst film.

Kyle Mertes wrote: Movie Dude wrote: I just the article and as a reaction to it, I would like to say this. You should be ashamed of yourself for calling "Batman Forever" & "Back To The Future Part III" the worst of their series. I really love those entries. Shame on you, indeed.

It's called an opinion. No "shame on you" necessary.

Awesome job as always, Mr Powers. Was glad to see The Prisoner of Azkaban on your best list. Being a fan of the book series and film series, the third is my favorite in both areas.

And I agree wholeheartedly about The Last Stand. It's a good movie, with some great scenes, but it truly disappoints. But for the time limited that was given to complete the "revenge project" against Singer and beat Superman Returns to theaters, it's awe-inspiring. I just wish they would have taken their time with it, because it did have so much more potential. It all works as a film. I don't think that is the end of that series, though...

Great article. It's nice to see Season of the Witch get some good time. I personally like it as a change of pace and it's a great movie if you forget it's part of the Halloween series.

And I've got a copy of Friday the 13th 3D that just needs a pair field sequential 3D glasses so I can watch it. I'm going to a convention in Indianapolis this weekend to meet a few people from my message board and meet some celebs from the re-imaging of Halloween. hehe Maybe I'll find them there.

I've always like Alien 3, the menacing atmosphere aides it quite well, and having seen the producers cut which clears up plot points missing from the original cut, I like it even more.

With regards to BTTF III, I never really liked it, I was more a fan of the derided Part II. Batman Forever is cracking entertainment especially in its uncut form,(I don't mean the much mentioned Dir Cur, merely the fact that the UK version was butchered), Batman And Robin is so frightenly bad that I can't take seriously the taste of anyone that actually admits liking it,(sorry).

I liked X-Men 3 apart from the hideous CG makeover to Xavier and Magneto. Meant to make them look younger, it made them look like computer game characters. Not as good as Part 2,(how can anyone not like? Philistines), but still cracking fun.

Spider-Man 3 was cack, and yes I did get the joke with emo Peter, I just can't tolerate the hacked story telling, plotholes and the need to make a character wear black eyeliner to show that they're bad. Nice to see Kirsten Dunst back to her curvy gorgeous self after looking like a p*ss stained Axel Rose in Part 2. I doubt there'll be a Raimi commentary on the dvd unless it's a grovelling apology.

I hate ALL the Harry Potter films, but part 3 did lift the franchise a bit after Columbus' turgid parts one and two.

Finally, regarding Army Of Darkness, the HK R3 disc is the way to go. The rest aren't worth the discs they're pressed on. Expensive coasters for sure, and the fact that people collect them is hilarious.The shorter U.S. cut is also awful,(Christ I hate that supermarket ending, the apocalyptic ending remains truer to the character),with line and scenes substitutuions that simply aren't as good as the longer cut.

Well done for sticking up for Alien 3, Gabe - I always do. It certainly has flaws, and always suffers when compared to Aliens, but it has a great atmosphere, a good cast and some great set-pieces. It also works in bringing the trilogy to a logical conclusion. Just don't ask me where the egg came from. Alien Resurrection is the worst of the four for me (not counting AvP).

Now, Shrek the Third on the other hand - that really deserves to be on the worst list. What a disappointment after the first two. So much unfunniness... way to ruin a series.

That's a hard one Kaya. I included Good Bad and Ugly and Lady Vengeance, and I thought about including In The Mouth of Madness, but like I said, the whole article was getting a little epic. That, and I don't really want to revisit how much I hated Babel just to have more readers call me names

What about unofficial trilogies? Like Ammores Perros, 21 Grams and Babel. And Leone's Once Upon A Time trilogy with Once Upon A Time In The West, Duck You Sucker (sometimes called Once Upon A Time In The Revolution) and Once Upon A Time In America.

Great article. It's been a little while since I've watched the Matrix films, but I was a little surprised at the venomocity towards Revolutions: I'll have to watch it again, but I know I liked it more than Harry Potter. Can't agree with BTTF:III as a "Worst Of," though it doesn't belong on the "Best Of" list either. It was adequate.

Also, I'm not sure how Batman, Halloween, Nightmare, etc. fit into the "trilogy" category, since they are more of a franchise, no real over-arching story. Picky, I know, but...

Disregarding my last statement, how would "The Inforcer" from the Dirty Harry franchise rank? (I haven't seen it yet)

Then i see watch the first and second movie again followd by the third and you see that Hogwards is changed much.

It is Sony's fault that the set been changed because there need it for the Davincie code movie and that'S why the fift is changed again,because there need it for the seguel of the davincie code.

I haven't seen the fourth yet,but from what i have seen the movie return to the green dark style who i missing in the scotland scene's in the third movie and like so much from the first and second movie. The fairy tale style,also a very importent style who return a litle bit in the 6th book.

I think the 6th movie is better of if it is the style of how Secrets is made now with a litle Stone and Fire and mabey a bit Azkaban,because it it more LOTR-Fairytale style with contuned some story elements of the second and fourth book with a litle bit of the first.

You remember from Secrets that Harry fly to in a store when he yused the fyre thing from Ron's family and later Draco Melfoy and his is Father lucius been there a couple of minutes later whyle Harry Going behind something. Draco returns in the 6th book return to that store to cell some very importent thing.

A lot of people writing that the third movie is darker,but i think those Scotland scene's make it more lightnis (more sunny). The third book followd by the fift and number 1 are my favorite books followd by number 6.

I'm sorry James Bond, we're having a little bit of a language barrier here, but I'll do my best.

The costume changes were to my liking, but the lush set design was not changed. Though I thought the first movie was haphazardly directed, and the second kind of boring in general, they had wonderful sets and a very "lived-in" feel.

I've seen 13 movies from this list; some I remember well, others I can't quite recall their quality or my opinion of them. I have seen all Star Wars films but it's been a while. Nightmare on Elm Street 3 is one of the better entries in the series. I like all Harry Potter films but, 3, while still a good movie, might be my least favorite. Season of the Witch, while not as bad as people say, has got to be the lowest point in the series for me. Die Hard 3 is one of my favorite action movies. I can't recall my opinion of T3 or Muppets. Sometimes to get my true opinion on how certain entries in a series stack up to each other I need to view them in one sitting or see them multiple times. One movie I need to do this with is X3; I have only seen it one time and didn't feel like it was a bad film at all. I don't even need to see Batman Forever again to know that I strongly disagree with you; some people don't like it but I do and especially more than Batman and Robin. I bought the Batman boxset and enjoyed watching all films until #4, which (and I'm not even joking) put me to sleep. Final Destination 3 wasn't that bad, but Child's Play 3 certainly was.

I don't understand that you saying the art direction and set design — are not lost from Azkaban. Because that's not true,with the fift movie the change the set again,but there begin with Azkaban andnot only the set changed. Curon changed also the customes or better say there are not realy Harry Potter costumes in Azkaban with Phoenix i see it happend again. Azkaban whas better then expect,but i whas not happy with the set changed and the missing costumes and the movie is way to short. Also it missing some importent scene's include a are very importent scene that explains why Bellatrix is in Azkaban that contuned in in Phoenix and a scene between Serius & Lucius under a tree who whas importent to understand Lucius better in The Goblet Of Fire.

Good list Gabe, I agree with most of that list. The Godfather Part III is indeed not that horrible, but I think the fact that it didn't live up to the first two (I'd say it's only miles away!!) - Although, I'd say that T3 belong in the same area as I think it didn't live up to the sheer brilliance of the first two, especially the second one!

Damn, I thought that III that belongs to Halloween was actually from Superman. Stellar article. And I wholeheartedly agree about BttF III. I find it to be the blandest entry in the series. Not being a fan of the old west may have something to do with it but... meh.

Home Alone 3... I'm still convinced that, that was never actually made and only a figment of my imagination.

as far as X3 is concerned, i've noticed that it seems the only people disappointed are those who were fans and knew the comics inside out and all. it seems from reading around and talking to people that those who enjoyed it or even loved it only had the previous 2 movies as knowledge of that world.

so i think with movies based on comics and books and whatnot, your exposure or non-exposure to those universes makes a difference in how you perceive and receive the film versions, for good or bad.

me personally, i've never read one comic of theirs, before the first movie all i knew of x-men was from the handful of episodes i saw of the 90s cartoon. so because of that i didnt have any expections of any sort so i enjoyed all three and i know the fans will think i'm a moron but, i liked part 3 most of all. lol

I agree. I actually really like X3, but I've never read any of the comics. All of my friends that have read the comics think I'm completely insane.

And Prisoner of Azkaban is definitely the best in the Harry Potter film series. I'm a huge fan of the books, and I think that this movie captured the feel of the books better than any of the others. I know most of the books fans hate it because it cuts out really important aspects of the story, but that's what you get when you make a book into a movie.

I disagree, I think the first two Harry Potter films were paced brilliantly. The scenes are fluid and move incredibly well. Chamber is the longest of the saga so far and it flies by. I also like Columbus because he didn't take any cheap stabs at thrills or comedy. I believe he made two very incredible movies. I do like Alfonso's style, I just think his whimsical "feel" took too much away from the series. A lot of the scenes in the first half of the movie were very cheap stabs at comedy that took away from the story (the monster book, the shrunken head on the bus, the scene with the magical animal crackers or whatever). None of those elements gave any depth to the film and were wastes of time.

I can, however, understand where you're coming from. I think Alfonso is much more talented director than Columbus, but I just think he failed miserably at Harry Potter.

Dave, I've got two copies, the HK release and the original 2-disc from Anchor bay. Previous to that I purchased it twice on VHS.

Frank, I don't know what to tell you, I really don't. I think the first two movies are well acted and have good set design, but I think Columbus has no concept of pacing or geography. It's a taste thing a suppose, and one I can't really argue.

I don't understand how anyone could think Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a better film than the first two Harry Potter films. I have to say I don't agree with that at all. Harry Potter 3 was nearly god-awful. I love Alfonso Cuarón but he certainly doesn't know how to direct a Harry Potter movie. His film didn't even come close to matching the richness, warmth, and complexity of Sorcerer's Stone or Chamber of Secrets.

Spider-Man 3 is a very flawed film full of missed opportunities that I still enjoyed. I'm not going to break my back defending it because I happen to agree with most of the negative things haters have to say. The only thing that ruffles my feathers is when people complain about "Emo" Peter. It was a joke guys.

I'm surprised so many people have rallied around "Nightmare" and "Halloween 3"... maybe I would have to watch them again, but as I remember them, I don't even wanna put in the time.

Lastly, "Spider-Man 3" was really a bunch of garbage... I can go into a huge explanation, and will if I get called on it, but there was too much going on and for the second straight movie, totally neglected to develop the characters in their "hero" or "villain" form. The more and more I think about it, the more I totally hate it.

Well, I can't argue geek semantics, but Wolverine is a Canadian in the movies, at least he is when we meet him. His comic backstory is so muddled I'm not sure anyone could claim his actual country of origin these days.

I was a big fan of the comics as a kid, and remember many details, but I love the real world (or as close as we could ever get) adaptatoin in X2. I beleive that comic book and film universes should reflect one another, but be different. I love what's been done with the Hellboy property. The comics, live action films, and cartoons are all different universes. I beleive X2 was a very well structured story that took cues from the classic comics without being a slave to them, and that's why I was so excited to see what the creative team could do with The Dark Phoenix saga. Though X3 wasn't very good, I was a big fan of leaving the whole space alien side of the original story out of the script.

So far as Lady Deathstrike goes, I beleive the credits list her as Yuriko Oyama. She's really just there to act as Stryker's bodygaurd. Her name and powers are more of an Easter Egg for fans the way I see it. The script couldn't handle another character the way I see it. And let's remember that Logan still lacks a memory and she's under mind control. Perhaps her backstory is the same as that of the comics....

as far as X3 is concerned, i've noticed that it seems the only people disappointed are those who were fans and knew the comics inside out and all. it seems from reading around and talking to people that those who enjoyed it or even loved it only had the previous 2 movies as knowledge of that world.

so i think with movies based on comics and books and whatnot, your exposure or non-exposure to those universes makes a difference in how you perceive and receive the film versions, for good or bad.

Funny enough, I've been reading X-Men on and off for about 17 years, and I hated X2 with a burning passion, but enjoyed X3. Not as a great film by any stretch, but the first with the balls to be an X-MEN movie. Singer's work felt like "I'm not making an X-Men movie, I'm not making an X-Men movie, I'm not making an X-Men movie..." and lacked colour. Then again, I also read this interview with Hugh Jackman: "I never read comics as a kid, and when I was slipped the comics under my trailer door, Bryan Singer didn't want us to read them. He was very frightened that we would come out with these 2D characters,"

Then saw X2. And saw what they did to Lady Deathstrike, and called Singer hypocrite extraordinaire. Also wasn't pleased that the religious element of God Loves, Man Kills was completely removed. Nor that Wolverine was somehow made American. Nor that his origin was revealed so simply and easily. Nor that it was tied to this one crazy nutball. Very boring.

Chris Johnson, do you ever have anything interesting to say, or do you simply write to see your words on the internet?

I make no apologies to anyone, but I appriciate the good natured feedback. This is a very personal list, and I very personally love Star Wars and don't like Back to the Future. It should probably be taken into account when I write anything. Crow Salvation almost made the list, but then I decided it was getting out of hand and long. That is an awful film though.

And mc_serenity, I actually stopped reading the LOTR books about half way through and moved on to the appendix. It's a great story, but it's very frustratingly written.

as far as X3 is concerned, i've noticed that it seems the only people disappointed are those who were fans and knew the comics inside out and all. it seems from reading around and talking to people that those who enjoyed it or even loved it only had the previous 2 movies as knowledge of that world.

so i think with movies based on comics and books and whatnot, your exposure or non-exposure to those universes makes a difference in how you perceive and receive the film versions, for good or bad.

me personally, i've never read one comic of theirs, before the first movie all i knew of x-men was from the handful of episodes i saw of the 90s cartoon. so because of that i didnt have any expections of any sort so i enjoyed all three and i know the fans will think i'm a moron but, i liked part 3 most of all. lol

oh and i love the little design over the article, with all the "3"s from the different movies, thats cool.

You guys do realise these are all the third in their respective series, right? Batman Forever is part 3 of that series, and it's one of the worst ones. Yes he said he prefers Batman and Robin over Forever, but I'm sure if there was a "Part IV" article, B&R would be up there. Nightmare on Elm Street and BTTF, same thing.

I disagree with the entries for both SW trilogies, both massively disappointing but tolerable (ROTJ was the best out of the them, though) as well as BF, Indy 3 and NOES 3. The EE cut for LOTR: ROTK was much too long and indulgent, the theatrical cut was just the right length.

I do wholeheartedly agree with Harry Potter 3, it is my favorite out of the current quadrilogy. (I do disagree with your statement about the two movies before POA and the immediate one after, I found them good but not as good as POA). I also agree with everything else on the list... Spidey 3 is sadly underrated but I can understand why people don't like it as much as the second.

Great article Gabe. Can't agree with you about BTTF3 I'm afraid but I'm with you on Alien 3. Azkaban is also my favourite of the Harry Potter series. It's got great visuals and feels more like a director's movie than the others.

Movie Dude wrote: I just the article and as a reaction to it, I would like to say this. You should be ashamed of yourself for calling "Batman Forever" & "Back To The Future Part III" the worst of their series. I really love those entries. Shame on you, indeed.

It's called an opinion. No "shame on you" necessary.

Awesome job as always, Mr Powers. Was glad to see The Prisoner of Azkaban on your best list. Being a fan of the book series and film series, the third is my favorite in both areas.

And I agree wholeheartedly about The Last Stand. It's a good movie, with some great scenes, but it truly disappoints. But for the time limited that was given to complete the "revenge project" against Singer and beat Superman Returns to theaters, it's awe-inspiring. I just wish they would have taken their time with it, because it did have so much more potential. It all works as a film. I don't think that is the end of that series, though...

I just the article and as a reaction to it, I would like to say this. You should be ashamed of yourself for calling "Batman Forever" & "Back To The Future Part III" the worst of their series. I really love those entries. Shame on you, indeed.

Upon rereading your thoughts on LADY VENGEANCE, I find I disagree more than I thought.

For me, the trilogy peaked at SYMPATHY and while it's undeniably a darker film, it has better performances, less contrivances (although the ending of SYMPATHY is fairly contrived if you think about it) and its own stunning visual style, sense of humor and delivery.

OLDBOY comes next for me because it has both the gonzo style and the ability to keep it from feeling as aggravatingly "style over substance"y as LADY VENGEANCE was.

Greg Watterworth Jr. wrote: Good list... the only thing I guess I would take issue with is the inclusion of..."Halloween 3"... Blasphemer! May the curse of the Silver Shamrock strike you down this Halloween!

I love Halloween III; it's such a strange, fun, and mean spirited little movie that tries to be different. Plus it stars Tom "Will Work For Beer" Atkins, who plays a real man's man type of hero in both this and The Fog, and Dan O'Herlihy is a great villian who's just so giddy over the wholesale murder of children that the feeling is dangerously contagious.

Well, SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939), third in that series, is a real misfire compared to the two James Whale flicks that went before it. On the other hand, BIKINI BEACH (1964) is a big improvement over its predecessor, MUSCLE BEACH PARTY, although not as good as the original Frankie-Annette outing, the original '63 BEACH PARTY.

Meh, there's always one. How on Earth anyone could say that Nightmare 2 is better than 3 is beyond me. Dream Warriors is actually a pretty solid film, but part 2 defies the laws set by Craven in the original and instead opts for weird S&M scenes with the school's gym teacher...

Good list... the only thing I guess I would take issue with is the inclusion of "Nightmare 3" and "Halloween 3"... two movies I have seen a few times... and they are both awful... just cause they might be better than the c**ppy sequels... doesn't mean they are good. I actually don't think "Nightmare 2" is that bad, I like the idea that Freddy is able to walk in the real world for once. Otherwise, solid...